Banning abortion after 20 weeks passed by the House

[Soopairik]

Abort the aborters. That's what I say.

Do you mind explaining why you are opposed?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Abort the aborters. That's what I say.

IF YOU CAN'T OFFER A VALID REASON FOR THAT, why should anyone agree with you?

 

[Soopairik]

IF YOU CAN'T OFFER A VALID REASON FOR THAT, why should anyone agree with you?

I've looked at her profile and she never actually addresses why she believes in what she believes. Just posts on a thread, then never returns.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I've looked at her profile and she never actually addresses why she believes in what she believes. Just posts on a thread, then never returns.

SUCH FOLKS ARE NO BETTER THAN SPAMMERS. Certainly they are not Debating!

 

[Dragonfly]

Trump shames Senate for failing to advance 20-week abortion ban | Fox News

Republicans needed 60 votes to advance the measure, dubbed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. However, the vote finished 51-46, nine short of the necessary threshold.

 

[eman623]

20 weeks seems like a good compromise cutoff date, balancing the rights of the developing fetus against those of the mom.

 

[minnie616]

20 weeks seems like a good compromise cutoff date, balancing the rights of the developing fetus against those of the mom.

Viability was the compromise between the woman’s/ doctor’s right to privacy and the state’s compelling interest in the potential human life of the unborn.

 

[eman623]

Viability was the compromise between the woman’s/ doctor’s right to privacy and the state’s compelling interest in the potential human life of the unborn.

I'm not sure what legal justification there is for viability. But it probably amounts to about the same thing.

 

[Lursa]

20 weeks seems like a good compromise cutoff date, balancing the rights of the developing fetus against those of the mom.

Why should women's rights be compromised at all? How is that justifiable under the Constitution?

And why 20 weeks?

 

[eman623]

Why should women's rights be compromised at all? How is that justifiable under the Constitution?

And why 20 weeks?

The rights of the mother have to be weighed against the rights of the unborn child, which starts off as a single fertilized call, but eventually develops into a new person. Protecting the rights of persons is certainly within the purview of the Constitution. As I sometimes say, a single cell is not a person, nor is two cells. But a person is not simply a collection of cells. At some point in the pregnancy personhood occurs. When is that point? Impossible to say. It's as much a metaphysical as a legal question.

So why 20 weeks? Why not. I know it seems arbitrary. In fact, I like it because it's arbitrary! It's one notable factor is that it's approximately midway in the pregnancy. Seems as good a place as any to me to draw the line between "collection of cells" and "person".

Of course, other may see it differently. That's ok. Let's all discuss it and then vote. I bet my position is a lot closer to consensus than anyone else's. In fact, this thread suggests I'm spot-on.

 

[Lursa]

The rights of the mother have to be weighed against the rights of the unborn child, which starts off as a single fertilized call, but eventually develops into a new person. Protecting the rights of persons is certainly within the purview of the Constitution. As I sometimes say, a single cell is not a person, nor is two cells. But a person is not simply a collection of cells. At some point in the pregnancy personhood occurs. When is that point? Impossible to say. It's as much a metaphysical as a legal question.

So why 20 weeks? Why not. I know it seems arbitrary. In fact, I like it because it's arbitrary! It's one notable factor is that it's approximately midway in the pregnancy. Seems as good a place as any to me to draw the line between "collection of cells" and "person".

Of course, other may see it differently. That's ok. Let's all discuss it and then vote. I bet my position is a lot closer to consensus than anyone else's. In fact, this thread suggests I'm spot-on.

The unborn has no rights. None. This was a SCOTUS decision, considered the same way as when they also made decisions re: women and blacks.

THe unborn cannot be treated equally under the Constitution with the born. One of the other would end up relegated to 2nd class citizens. And SCOTUS already determined that women no longer are.

Re: arbitrary: maybe you didnt read the OP but there was a (false) reason for 20 weeks. It's about fetal pain and the lie is that a) such late term *elective* abortions are rare to none, and b) there is no need to for the unborn to feel pain, anesthetic injection is provided.

So...what laws would you propose to the Supreme Court for consideration that can be carried out to protect the unborn that dont violate all of a woman's rights, up to and including that of life and liberty?

 

[eman623]

The unborn has no rights. None. This was a SCOTUS decision, considered the same way as when they also made decisions re: women and blacks.

THe unborn cannot be treated equally under the Constitution with the born. One of the other would end up relegated to 2nd class citizens. And SCOTUS already determined that women no longer are.

Re: arbitrary: maybe you didnt read the OP but there was a (false) reason for 20 weeks. It's about fetal pain and the lie is that a) such late term *elective* abortions are rare to none, and b) there is no need to for the unborn to feel pain, anesthetic injection is provided.

So...what laws would you propose to the Supreme Court for consideration that can be carried out to protect the unborn that dont violate all of a woman's rights, up to and including that of life and liberty?

It's not true that the unborn have no rights. If you say beat a pregnant woman and kill her unborn fetus, you can be tried for murder if the fetus is past a certain number of weeks.

I'm not that interested in the pain argument. That's also one of those metaphysical questions that's impossible to answer. And it's not really the issue, at least not for me. It's about when personhood is attained. Although I suppose the capacity to feel pain might be a good marker for personhood.

What laws would I propose? I already said I like the 20 weeks bill being discussed.

 

[Lursa]

It's not true that the unborn have no rights. If you say beat a pregnant woman and kill her unborn fetus, you can be tried for murder if the fetus is past a certain number of weeks.

I'm not that interested in the pain argument. That's also one of those metaphysical questions that's impossible to answer. And it's not really the issue, at least not for me. It's about when personhood is attained. Although I suppose the capacity to feel pain might be a good marker for personhood.

What laws would I propose? I already said I like the 20 weeks bill being discussed.

No, the unborn has no rights that are represented in those cases. They are made on behalf of the mother and of the state. THe state may decide if it wishes to take an interest in the unborn in some states.

And capacity to feel pain is meaningless when modern medicine uses anesthetics in medical procedures, including for the unborn in very rare late term abortions. It is just an excuse to limit abortions by lying to the public and using emotional blackmail to do so.

OK, 20 weeks because it's arbitrary then :roll:

But you didnt address this, in terms of bringing reality to the discussion:

So...what laws would you propose to the Supreme Court for consideration that can be carried out to protect the unborn that dont violate all of a woman's rights, up to and including that of life and liberty?

 

[eman623]

No, the unborn has no rights that are represented in those cases. They are made on behalf of the mother and of the state. THe state may decide if it wishes to take an interest in the unborn in some states.

And capacity to feel pain is meaningless when modern medicine uses anesthetics in medical procedures, including for the unborn in very rare late term abortions. It is just an excuse to limit abortions by lying to the public and using emotional blackmail to do so.

OK, 20 weeks because it's arbitrary then :roll:

But you didnt address this, in terms of bringing reality to the discussion:

The unborn clearly have rights. When Scott Peterson killed his wife and unborn son, he was tried and convicted of double homicide, which carries the death penalty. Scott sits on death row because his unborn son was enough of a person to be murderable.

Personally, I get very squeamish when I think of the process that a late-term fetus undergoes when being aborted. It's a messy business that basically involves either giving birth and then killing the baby, or killing it inside the womb. If you don't find that even a little bit unsettling, even if you think it's justifiable, then there's something wrong with you.

And since a 20+ week fetus is a person (in my opinion), the law has to weigh competing rights between the mother and child. Bottom line, she temporarily loses some of her rights regarding the fetus. She still retains the rights of life and almost all her liberty as you mentioned above. But I wouldn't propose laws to the SCOTUS. They don't pass laws.

 

[Lursa]

The unborn clearly have rights. When Scott Peterson killed his wife and unborn son, he was tried and convicted of double homicide, which carries the death penalty. Scott sits on death row because his unborn son was enough of a person to be murderable.

Personally, I get very squeamish when I think of the process that a late-term fetus undergoes when being aborted. It's a messy business that basically involves either giving birth and then killing the baby, or killing it inside the womb. If you don't find that even a little bit unsettling, even if you think it's justifiable, then there's something wrong with you.

Nope...the state chose to take an interest in the unborn and in cases like this, on behalf of the mother or state, the unborn is legally treated more like property.

And it's none of your business how messy it is, you arent going thru it. THat is one of the most emotionally-driven reasons I've ever read, altho I do recognize that it's honest. OTOH, what's amazing to me is that you feel that should impact a woman's decision regarding her life and future. That it should affect a complete stranger with her own struggles who is the only one who knows what is best for herself and her family (current and future).

I dont have to think about it. It doesnt hurt the unborn, the process shouldnt matter in the least. It's creepy that you focus on it.

Have you ever seen a birth? LMAO, that should show you right there how crazy that reasoning sounds...it it screaming pain and mess like a slaughterhouse (we had to watch the videos in HS).

 

[eman623]

Nope...the state chose to take an interest in the unborn and in cases like this, on behalf of the mother or state, the unborn is legally treated more like property.

And it's none of your business how messy it is, you arent going thru it. THat is one of the most emotionally-driven reasons I've ever read, altho I do recognize that it's honest. OTOH, what's amazing to me is that you feel that should impact a woman's decision regarding her life and future. That it should affect a complete stranger with her own struggles who is the only one who knows what is best for herself and her family (current and future).

I dont have to think about it. It doesnt hurt the unborn, the process shouldnt matter in the least. It's creepy that you focus on it.

Have you ever seen a birth? LMAO, that should show you right there how crazy that reasoning sounds...it it screaming pain and mess like a slaughterhouse (we had to watch the videos in HS).

You can't murder property. If the state can choose to take enough interest in a fetus to call it a homicide when it is killed, then it can take enough interest to protect its life when it gets old enough.

I find it extremely disturbing when you say a late term fetus isn't hurt by being aborted. I'm assuming that came out wrong.

As for my standing to have a opinion on the matter? I've never been a slave or owned slaves, but I can presumably still think slavery is bad. I've never murdered anyone or (obviously) been myself murdered, but I am still entitled to think murder is wrong. By the same token I can think late-term abortion is wrong despite not being a woman.

 

[Lursa]

And since a 20+ week fetus is a person (in my opinion), the law has to weigh competing rights between the mother and child. Bottom line, she temporarily loses some of her rights regarding the fetus. She still retains the rights of life and almost all her liberty as you mentioned above. But I wouldn't propose laws to the SCOTUS. They don't pass laws.

You are correct, the laws are all based on the SCOTUS decisions. And here is the law so it really doesnt matter how you 'consider' the unborn...this is why I asked you specifically for a legal basis for SCOTUS to consider. But here's current law based on their decision:

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

Now, how do you justify any laws that violate can violate ALL of a woman's rights, including her bodily sovereignty, her liberty, and her life?

What is the balance there? A loss of bodily sovereignty is forever, as is death. As is severe permanent health damage. And we're talking 86,800 women a yr here in the US for those last two.

How do you justify making women 2nd class citizens again have having their rights to due process and privacy violated?

 

[Lursa]

You can't murder property. If the state can choose to take enough interest in a fetus to call it a homicide when it is killed, then it can take enough interest to protect its life when it gets old enough.

I find it extremely disturbing when you say a late term fetus isn't hurt by being aborted. I'm assuming that came out wrong.

As for my standing to have a opinion on the matter? I've never been a slave or owned slaves, but I can presumably still think slavery is bad. I've never murdered anyone or (obviously) been myself murdered, but I am still entitled to think murder is wrong. By the same token I can think late-term abortion is wrong despite not being a woman.

In the RvW decision it does allow for that...for states to choose to take interest...but it still recognizes no rights. Homicide merely means 'killing man.' And yes, someone killed that unborn human. You can be charged with killing pets too...and they are property.

A fetus feels no pain during an abortion, that is what that statement meant.

 

[Removable Mind]

The rights of the mother have to be weighed against the rights of the unborn child, which starts off as a single fertilized call, but eventually develops into a new person. Protecting the rights of persons is certainly within the purview of the Constitution. As I sometimes say, a single cell is not a person, nor is two cells. But a person is not simply a collection of cells. At some point in the pregnancy personhood occurs. When is that point? Impossible to say. It's as much a metaphysical as a legal question.

So why 20 weeks? Why not. I know it seems arbitrary. In fact, I like it because it's arbitrary! It's one notable factor is that it's approximately midway in the pregnancy. Seems as good a place as any to me to draw the line between "collection of cells" and "person".

Of course, other may see it differently. That's ok. Let's all discuss it and then vote. I bet my position is a lot closer to consensus than anyone else's. In fact, this thread suggests I'm spot-on.

You’re misinformed - or not familiar with the Constitution as it relates to whom is entitled to rights as defined within the Bill of Rights.

Ms Lursa is 100% correct. There are no Constitutional rights for the yet to be born “at any stage of development”. Roe v Wade limits the woman’s rights after viability. But history tells us that the SC was appeasing religious/pro-life organizations by creating the “viability clause”. That appeasement was made at the cost of women’s Constitutional rights.

As it has been recently brought up in this Forum, the government has no constitutional basis for it to have an interest in any stage of development of a yet to be born. Viability is arbitrary. The state is infringing on the Constitutional right of women by proclaiming it can intervene at any given time it decides to during a pregnancy.

 

[AGENT J]

20 weeks seems like a good compromise cutoff date, balancing the rights of the developing fetus against those of the mom.

Ive been on record many times saying id be fine with going down to 20/21 weeks since thats the earliest possible viability. If the "at will" limit was moved to 21 weeks and also still allowed the right exceptions I could support it but never earlier than that.

 

[AGENT J]

The rights of the mother have to be weighed against the rights of the unborn child, which starts off as a single fertilized call, but eventually develops into a new person. Protecting the rights of persons is certainly within the purview of the Constitution. As I sometimes say, a single cell is not a person, nor is two cells. But a person is not simply a collection of cells. At some point in the pregnancy personhood occurs. When is that point? Impossible to say. It's as much a metaphysical as a legal question.

So why 20 weeks? Why not. I know it seems arbitrary. In fact, I like it because it's arbitrary! It's one notable factor is that it's approximately midway in the pregnancy. Seems as good a place as any to me to draw the line between "collection of cells" and "person".

Of course, other may see it differently. That's ok. Let's all discuss it and then vote. I bet my position is a lot closer to consensus than anyone else's. In fact, this thread suggests I'm spot-on.

20 weeks actually isnt arbitrary at all. 20/21 weeks is the half way point so that splits the difference nicely and 21 weeks is the earliest possibly viability so its actually a sound point to pick.

With that said though i have no motivation to PUSH to move it to 20/21 since its already at 24. Again though I could support it going that low as long as the right exceptions were still allowed and it was based on medical science/rights and not anything else.

 

[AGENT J]

The unborn clearly have rights.

They actually do not. If you disagree list the legal rights they have. I understand what you are saying with your example but its simply inaccurate. Its because of the crime against the mother and not the unborn.

 

[eman623]

You are correct, the laws are all based on the SCOTUS decisions. And here is the law so it really doesnt matter how you 'consider' the unborn...this is why I asked you specifically for a legal basis for SCOTUS to consider. But here's current law based on their decision:

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8



Now, how do you justify any laws that violate can violate ALL of a woman's rights, including her bodily sovereignty, her liberty, and her life?

What is the balance there? A loss of bodily sovereignty is forever, as is death. As is severe permanent health damage. And we're talking 86,800 women a yr here in the US for those last two.

How do you justify making women 2nd class citizens again have having their rights to due process and privacy violated?

The SCOTUS has said that abortions can be limited after liability. I'm suggesting that personhood is a better measure, although in practice it probably works out to about the same thing.

As for your strawman question where you make up something I never said and then demand I justify it, well you'll just have to make up an answer that I never offered and go with that.:lamo

 

[eman623]

In the RvW decision it does allow for that...for states to choose to take interest...but it still recognizes no rights. Homicide merely means 'killing man.' And yes, someone killed that unborn human. You can be charged with killing pets too...and they are property.

A fetus feels no pain during an abortion, that is what that statement meant.

People don't get the death penalty for killing pets. And like I said before, I'm not much concerned about the pain thing (which BTW you couldn't possibly know if your claim is true). It's not the pain that disturbs me, it's the killing of something that is essentially a person. Call me sentimental, but I don't like that.

 

[eman623]

You’re misinformed - or not familiar with the Constitution as it relates to whom is entitled to rights as defined within the Bill of Rights.

Ms Lursa is 100% correct. There are no Constitutional rights for the yet to be born “at any stage of development”. Roe v Wade limits the woman’s rights after viability. But history tells us that the SC was appeasing religious/pro-life organizations by creating the “viability clause”. That appeasement was made at the cost of women’s Constitutional rights.

As it has been recently brought up in this Forum, the government has no constitutional basis for it to have an interest in any stage of development of a yet to be born. Viability is arbitrary. The state is infringing on the Constitutional right of women by proclaiming it can intervene at any given time it decides to during a pregnancy.

The fact that the SCOTUS hasn't declared a fetus to have rights does not mean it doesn't have them. The rights vary from state to state, but in many places they have the right not to be terminated after a certain number of weeks. Or terminated without the consent of the mother. It's even called murder in such cases.